GeForce GTX 260 vs GTX 770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 770M with GeForce GTX 260, including specs and performance data.
770M outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 614 | 835 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.78 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 6.91 | 1.22 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | GT200 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.99 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 770M has 1171% better value for money than GTX 260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 960 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 811 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 797 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 63.76 | 36.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.53 TFLOPS | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 28 |
| TMUs | 80 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 224 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 896 MB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.0 GB/s | 111.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 51
+143%
| 21−24
−143%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.73
+474%
| 21.38
−474%
|
- GTX 770M has 474% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 151
+152%
|
60−65
−152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+143%
|
30−33
−143%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Palworld | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 770M and GTX 260 compete in popular games:
- GTX 770M is 143% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.70 | 2.88 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 182 Watt |
GTX 770M has a 133% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 243% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132% more advanced lithography process, and 143% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 770M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 770M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
